New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-05-04
THE MATTERN-sAGE CASE REopENED.

SOME MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO WHICH OF TWO
MEN is THE PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL
The Mattcrn-sage reference reopened yester
day. with certain limitations to the testimony TO be
brought out There sitting before Granville r.
Halves that lasted four hours. W. W. Niles, the new
counsel of Miss Mattem, read the affidavit of her old
counsel, Mr. Van vechten, which the plea for re-
opening based This referred to all the papers in the
case having been distracted from hs-oice and stated
that he had further documentary evidence and witnesses
to bring forward He described the nature of the
evidence. which comprised document signed by MI
Sage and witnesses III regard to his acquaintance ana
Mr. Bennett, behalf OF Mr. Sage, said that the
opening sought on an affidavit which began; DE,
from his office" What motive could there have been in
abstractng them Then the dep0nent called attention
were credtable visits why did he seek to have them in
edence not creditaole what was the court TO infer
school too left his mothers string
The only appropriate punishment for such an affidavit
knee Everybody knows that IL Is annoying 10 Mr. Sage
ana MS family TO have these proceedings in the paper
making this motion r.
long discussion followed and at length the referee
consented 10 reopen the rs. d. c. Van BOckcn an
expert accountant testified that he had carefully gone
over tho statement OF account rendered by Mr. Sage and
he found that on June u.s. 1881 instead OF having bal
ance against her. the plaintiff had then 1892 90 10 her
credit regardless OF any interest accounts.
Then Miss Matern's evidence In rebuttal was taken
II was to the effect that she met Mr. Sage before May l.
stocks at No 81 Exchange place and called upon Mr
sage with letter OF Introduction from Nathaniel Niles
OF MI sage and AT long intervals asked question upon
H. Az length he grew weary and wished an adjourn
lnent but Mr. Bennett declared that the must be
closed that very night Mr. Niles wanted 10 ask another
question: and also % bring witness In rcbutta OF Mr.
sages evidence OF his having called the plaintiff be-
fore the two visits already testified 10. Then Mr. Van
Nechten turned to point Of Mr. Sagcs testimony that
both counsel had overlooked showing that such evidence
was immaterial
Mr. Niles If true that my associate wants msead
the
The Referee associate wants show the court the
facts.
Mr.. Van Vechten retained counsel 10 tile
for the paiDuf have tried 10 the best OF ability DO.
neve all the testimony before the Join with
Mr.. Bennett In asking the 10 he closed.
MT Bennett 30 Mr. Miles,; Do you have witness
toproye third visit OF Mr. Sage 70 the plaintiff
Mr. Niles Yes we will do Just that
MI. Bennett: We will let you produce that witness.
MT Niles: said VIII. as at present advised.
Mr. Van YecAten objected, and said that he coun-
sci for the plaintiff In the and he wished closed
Then Miss Mattern addressed the herself and said
that she did not tell her counsel anything about witness
In regard 10 q visit in 1881
Mr. NilesI did not say 1881 said prior TO that year
long prior
At length the case was adjourned unit. Thursday
As the lawyers were leaving the Mr. Van Vechten
offered Miss Mattern her and Mr. Niles the copy
OF the testimony. IL was kind Of challenge 10 her 10
select which should represent her Tears sprang 10 her
eyes, and she beginning 10 expostulate when Ref
cree Halves put end 10 the affecting by inviting
them to settle the matter In private